I’m thinking of DullTrev’s three-part deconstruction of the Labour party, Breaker’s manifesto and TheophileEscargot’s manifesto.
Looking at these diaries, what sets them apart from the traditional political process is the authors’ willingness to debate with other Husi users, and the Husi users willingness to debate back, with a lack of dogma, ego or ideology, but respect for each others’ ideas, with the hope of coming to some sort of conclusion.
Of course there is no conclusion. But this is how debate should be. Mainstream politics is stuck in a very old-fashioned tradition of verbal, public debate, which invites ego and has no room for contradiction, doubt or backing down. Face to face, debate is about you, not your ideas. And verbal dexterity, a meaningless skill, becomes paramount.
The written word however allows care, precision and clarity. Couple that with the internet and you get the immediacy that is so important for debate. Add a certain amount of anonymity, not real anonymity but one that avoids the psychological issues that come with talking to someone face-to-face, and you allow room for doubt, backing down, accepting the other person may be right.
What I’m appealing for is some sort of informed debate on Husi as to how we can use this and make it work in the wider world. How can we use our method of debate, which is better than the traditional method of political debate, to actually engage with, and maybe even change, the politics we are all so passionate about?
I am a firm believer in western democracy. I think it is the best way to do things. But we are in a new age, and embarrassing and web 2.0 as it is, I think we have something positive to offer in what we do here.
I want us to stop being a talking shop and actually make a difference. But I don’t know how. – together though I think we might be able to come up with something.
| < Two things. | video games, poker, homeland security, tennis and medical problems > |
